At least two thoughts came to my mind after reading your Oct. 10
editorial on the low primary-election turnouts throughout Utah, "Those
curious primaries."

First, according to a study by University of California political
scientists Benjamin Highton and Raymond Wolfinger, "voters' preferences
differ minimally from those of all citizens. Outcomes would not change
if everyone voted."

So, if you didn't vote, there's no need to beat yourself up.

Second, in this era of shrinking budgets, it makes less sense to
conduct two elections when one election will do. Under an electoral
system called "instant-runoff voting," voters can list candidates in
their order of preference -- first choice, second choice, and so on --
instead of choosing just one. If no candidate receives a majority of
votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is declared
defeated. The ballots are then recounted and allocated to the remaining
candidates according to the highest-ranked choices that remain. The
process continues until one candidate has a majority.

By replacing primary and general elections with one election using
instant-runoff voting, all participants save both time and money.

The Center for Voting and Democracy has more information about American
cities and organizations already using instant-runoff voting on its Web
site at www.fairvote.org.